Citing $130K in legal bills, Jammie Thomas’ lawyer withdraws

With a copyright infringement retrial looming for Jammie Thomas-Rasset on June …

The retrial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset for copyright infringement may be delayed once again, as her attorney is now attempting to withdraw from the case. In a motion filed late last week, Brian Toder, who represented Thomas-Rasset in her original copyright infringement trial, revealed that he is owed nearly $130,000 in legal bills. That amount will only increase as the retrial draws closer.

Toder had tried withdrawing before the first trial, but Judge Michael Davis refused to allow it. With Thomas-Rasset telling the court in a separate filing that she has no objection to Toder's withdrawal and waiving a hearing on the matter, it's more likely that Judge Raymond Erickson will allow Toder to shake the dust off his sandals and walk away from the case.

The withdrawal, which was first reported by our colleagues at ThreatLevel, comes just a couple of days after a court-mandated settlement conference between the RIAA and Thomas failed to bear fruit. The parties haggled for a couple hours in a Minneapolis courtroom before Judge Erickson ended the hearing, clearing the way for a June 15 retrial.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset's failure to settle the case may have been the straw that broke the camel's back as far as Toder is concerned. He filed an additional motion related to his desire to withdraw under seal, but the public filing indicates that the relationship between him and Thomas-Rasset has fractured. "In its previous Order the Court noted 'that the Defendant has offered to continue to make regular, monthly payments to Toder, which evinces a good faith effort, on her part, to make good on her debt to him, and is also an indication that communications have not, in fact, broken down between Toder, and his client, to such an extent as to warrant a withdrawal....' Please see Declaration of Brian N. Toder filed concurrently (under seal) with the instant motion which demonstrate the opposite."

For their part, the RIAA's attorneys have no objection to Toder's withdrawal at this late state in the game, but have also made it clear that they want the trial to go ahead as scheduled on June 15. Copyright attorney Ray Beckerman finds it surprising that the RIAA's counsel would oppose a delay in the trial date, which is customary when counsel for one of the parties withdraws.

The original $222,000 verdict against Thomas-Rasset was wiped out when the original judge decided his instructions to the jury were flawed. The jury was originally told that simply making a file available for download constituted copyright infringement; Judge Davis later determined "making available" was not sufficient to demonstrate copyright infringement. But the songs downloaded by MediaSentry from what appears to have been Thomas-Rasset's KaZaA account can be used as evidence of infringement in the retrial.

Thomas-Rasset has proclaimed her innocence all along and apparently remains determined to fight on to clear her name. Her unwillingness to settle combined with nearly $130,000 in legal bills and a lot of evidence that Thomas-Rasset's PC was the one fingered by the RIAA's investigators appears to have convinced Toder that it's time to part ways with his high-profile client.

Is the reason there are $130K of unpaid legal bills because that's what he billed her?

I'm just saying, if he invoiced her for 50K of unpaid bills, would those be the legal costs?

And if he walks away, is he walking away from that debt? One imagines that it would take giant size tesicles to claim with a straight face that you deserve $130K for dropping someone off at a point no better than when you started with them.

Of course, lawyers are known for the simultaneity of the straightness of their faces and the crookedness of their hind hoof.

This really makes me wish that this was RIAA vs some high school or college student who could transform this farce into a step into a modest career in copyright law or journalism or something. I'm still hoping for maybe a passable book? A special on the Lifetime channel my mom could watch? Jammie has not made herself terribly sympathetic, but at least the $222,000 verdict has hopefully convinced people that the RIAA and their lawyers are to be taken seriously.And yeah, benjwah, that's how attorneys operate. It's not exactly a loss, but an estimate of how much he and his staff could have hypothetically made working on other cases for the same amount of time and effort, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the results of the case. (US Doctors work this way also-- outcome of the case doesn't matter!)

Yeah, a doctor accidentally removed too much of a polyp from my dad's colon, and later almost bled to death since the nurses didn't take the bleeding seriously until he passed out. Did the doctor pay for his losses or the medical costs? No.

Originally posted by d_jedi:Why the fuck does middle clicking now take me to the stupid fucking ajaxy commenting system where I can't post a damned image?

They use crappy JavaScript to capture the click. I can't Ctrl-Click either. You have to right click and select a new tab, or drag the link to the address bar (or use AdBlock to disable that bit of JS). It really is pretty crappy.

Psh. Of course they want the trial to go on as planned, they're the ones with the money and lawyers. Truly reprehensible, and I can't understand the mindset of anyone who buys CDs from these assholes anymore.

Thats my thinking. I really haven't a clue why this even gets coverage. I'd rather hear about people actually ensnared unintentionally, not idiots like Jammie Thomas.

I think the fear is that they start out going for idiots who are plainly in the wrong, and then move "inwards", if you will.

And idiots are idiots, but the imbalance of power in this particular case (dimwitted single mother vs. Harvard's best and brightest vultures) make it worthy for the rest of us to see.

Slippery Slope arguments are a logical fallacy. They already have went for people who didn't deserve it, so lets talk about those cases, not these ones where clearly the individual does deserve punishment.

Thats my thinking. I really haven't a clue why this even gets coverage. I'd rather hear about people actually ensnared unintentionally, not idiots like Jammie Thomas.

I think the fear is that they start out going for idiots who are plainly in the wrong, and then move "inwards", if you will.

And idiots are idiots, but the imbalance of power in this particular case (dimwitted single mother vs. Harvard's best and brightest vultures) make it worthy for the rest of us to see.

Slippery Slope arguments are a logical fallacy. They already have went for people who didn't deserve it, so lets talk about those cases, not these ones where clearly the individual does deserve punishment.

Brain-washed people like you make me vomit...*** NOBODY DESERVE PUNISHMENT FOR NON-COMMERCIAL FILE SHARING ***

> Jammie Thomas was initially found liable for 24 acts of infringement and ordered to pay $222,000 in damages.

Her crime was that she "made those available", not that she stole them. Her fine was $9,250 per song. This is the same thing as giving two CDs to a friend for them to rip.

I can just imagine being sued by Toyota for making my car available, or perhaps Best Western should sue if I make my house available rather than making guests stay in a hotel.

Even if you accept that she had no right to share with others and should be punished, the damages are outrageous. There is no way that her financial life should be permanently ruined for such a trivial offense. We are talking about "potential" losses of a few hundred dollars at best.

As it is, even if the damages were completely dropped, she is stuck with a $130,000 legal bill. So far.

Maybe this will make a new jury more sympathetic to Jammie? I mean, here is a person who can't pay her legal defense cost, and then on top of that the fines the RIAA seeks if she does not win a re-trial. If I were on the jury for the re-trial I would tend to be a little more sympathetic to Jammie in this case. I would not want a persons whole life ruined for some music that could have been purchased on a CD for a whole lot less then what the RIAA is asking for and would be tempted to view this as Jammie-poor-and-now-broke vs. the RIAA with millions, especially if the previous flawed jury instruction is not included and making available is not infringement. If she did it then she did it, but put it in context, its not like she would have stolen state secrets or something, its some music files. Although the rights holders have every legal right to protect their stuff and go after those who might steal it, this doesn't look like rights holders are involved any longer, it looks like a crusading vendetta by the RIAA. We let murders and drunk drivers and rapists go free on the criminal side of the system, but were going to ruin a persons life over some music files? We argue that the death penality is cruel and unusual punishment in some cases on the criminal side of the legal system, but yet the courts on the civil side would let the RIAA have its way seeking the fines they do and create such a large financial burden that might also in a sense be considered cruel and unusual in this case especially with the economy being the way it is? It would be different if this were mega-corporation vs. mega-corporation, but thats not the case here. If she did it, then yes, maybe some type of reasonable fine set by the court but not this overwhelming financial burden that the RIAA is seeking simply because they want it to hurt as much as possible.

Thats my thinking. I really haven't a clue why this even gets coverage. I'd rather hear about people actually ensnared unintentionally, not idiots like Jammie Thomas.

I think the fear is that they start out going for idiots who are plainly in the wrong, and then move "inwards", if you will.

And idiots are idiots, but the imbalance of power in this particular case (dimwitted single mother vs. Harvard's best and brightest vultures) make it worthy for the rest of us to see.

Slippery Slope arguments are a logical fallacy. They already have went for people who didn't deserve it, so lets talk about those cases, not these ones where clearly the individual does deserve punishment.

Well then, let's wait until they find one that deserves a $200000 fine for making available 9 songs.

I very much doubt she "clearly" deserves punishment, she'd have to be guilty.

She isn't guilty (yet), hence the re-trial. So she deserves the coverage because we don't wait until someone's been railroaded before asking whether she deserves the treatment she's getting. That's a fundamental in civil society.

Also, you can't argue that the RIAA haven't brought a knife to a fistfight here. I'd argue that this is on par with jaywalking as far as crimes against society go.

You can't say that this isn't just the RIAA trying its hardest to scare the hell out of everyone else. The only problem with that is that they apparently don't mind ruining a womans life on the way to their goals.

The whole point of this is a message from the RIAA: We're prepared to hound you for many years and many thousands of dollars ruining your life if you happen to download 9 songs too.

What she did was illegal.. so then fine her. It's a civil case and the fines should be about 500-600 dollars and then she should pay court costs.

A total of about 700-800 altogether.

There are people who pay less in fines and damages when they run over a child in a drunk driving case then what the RIAA is getting here. People have gotten less fines and punishment for trafficing in cocaine or child molestation.

As far as I am concerned trying to get the courts to force her to pay $222,000 is a much higher level of evil then running limewire on your home PC and sticking a couple ablums in it.

This is is a failure of the USA legal system and is shameful. The punishment must fit the crime, otherwise it's all complete horseshit. It's taking the entire legal system back 400 years.

-------------------------

Oh. And does somebody have a list of the members of the RIAA?

I want to make sure that they never get another cent of my money. I'd rather see the entire USA corporate music industry wilt away and die then see anymore cases like this one.

The irony here is that she'll be so in-debt by the time all these trials are over (either paying fines and/or lawyer fees), she'll probably pirate music again because she can't afford to buy it. Not like she did it the first time just for the kicks.

I'm quite sure the prevailing party would not offer any amount of money to anyone after suing the crap out of them.

The defendant's lawyer was probably hoping for a settlement so he could cut his losses and walk away with a finite bill for collection. Instead he ended up with the prospect of doubling his efforts with no more certainty of ever getting paid. And what if this thing drags on for years ? RIAA has no incentive to let go at this point... and Jammie Thomas is screwed, glued and tatooed no matter how you look at it.

Originally posted by benjwah:Well then, let's wait until they find one that deserves a $200000 fine for making available 9 songs.

I very much doubt she "clearly" deserves punishment, she'd have to be guilty.

She isn't guilty (yet), hence the re-trial. So she deserves the coverage because we don't wait until someone's been railroaded before asking whether she deserves the treatment she's getting. That's a fundamental in civil society.

She already was found guilty. Then the judge decided some of the instructions were incorrect and we have a retrial. But if you seriously doubt she did what was claimed, feel free to argue that case.

quote:

Also, you can't argue that the RIAA haven't brought a knife to a fistfight here. I'd argue that this is on par with jaywalking as far as crimes against society go.

Your welcome to your opinion, but legally speaking most of us enjoy the fact that if we create something, we have the right to copywrite and/or patent it for future profit.

quote:

You can't say that this isn't just the RIAA trying its hardest to scare the hell out of everyone else. The only problem with that is that they apparently don't mind ruining a womans life on the way to their goals.

She certainly had no issue stealing from them. I'd say she had no problem ruining her own life.

quote:

The whole point of this is a message from the RIAA: We're prepared to hound you for many years and many thousands of dollars ruining your life if you happen to download 9 songs too.

That be my two pieces of silver.

Here's a message for everyone: Don't steal other people's stuff. And if you happen to still steal, don't then try to distribute illegal copies of it. Treat others as you'd wish to be treated, then you won't end up in court with huge legal bills.

You and several others in this thread are assuming a lot. Is "making available" illegal? It's a fuzzy enough point that the judge has declared himself as possibly mistaken in his previous viewpoint. That alone should be enough to raise eyebrows as it's been enough for a retrial.

Besides, there was never any evidence that she was even "making available" other than what was included in the original suit. No files/programs were shown on her PC.

She already was found guilty. Then the judge decided some of the instructions were incorrect and we have a retrial. But if you seriously doubt she did what was claimed, feel free to argue that case.

...which means the judge believed that his instructions may have improperly prejudiced the jury against the defendant. Otherwise, there'd have been no reason to throw out the initial trial and its verdict.

quote:

Your welcome to your opinion, but legally speaking most of us enjoy the fact that if we create something, we have the right to copywrite and/or patent it for future profit.

That's "copyright." This case has nothing to do with patents. I'm all in favor of companies making a profit, but at $750 a song I think Apple and the iPod would have been history long ago, along with all of the recording companies... Obviously, we aren't talking "profits" here at all.

quote:

She certainly had no issue stealing from them. I'd say she had no problem ruining her own life.

If "stealing" was involved, then why is this a civil case? You cannot go to jail for losing a civil case, btw. A much better question is why the RIAA wants to go around suing people whom it knows beforehand cannot pay them the judgments awarded?

quote:

Here's a message for everyone: Don't steal other people's stuff. And if you happen to still steal, don't then try to distribute illegal copies of it. Treat others as you'd wish to be treated, then you won't end up in court with huge legal bills.

Very good advice. Now, if only the RIAA weren't trying to steal this woman's money far in excess of any profit loss the RIAA can prove--oh, that's right, the RIAA doesn't have to actually prove it lost anything, does it? And if only the RIAA weren't trying to steal this woman's attorney's fees to boot.

Here's a message for everyone: Don't steal other people's stuff. And if you happen to still steal, don't then try to distribute illegal copies of it. Treat others as you'd wish to be treated, then you won't end up in court with huge legal bills.

As a person that has had personal property stolen, and a business owner who has had intellectual and company owned property stolen; I have always felt that the only reimbursement required to me would be the value, or cost of replacing, the stolen item. In terms of intellectual property (yay for multi-year patent infringement lawsuits), the reimbursed monies should be either a) what I was unable to obtain based on lost business, or b) what the other party made with my I.P. - whichever is more.

In this case, the riaa should only be allowed to recoup their losses from the infringement. Market value of song x number of songs + number of people she allowed to obtain the song (however many downloaded it from her). At that point the record label has recouped their cost and it should be left to the court to decide applicable fines, reprecussions from the illegal action.

Let's see if I get the gist of all this:Jammie can't afford the original $220k decision against her.Jammie can't afford the $130k lawyers fees and her lawyer wants to bail.RIAA has probably spent $500-1000k or more on this one case in lawyer fees.RIAA wants to make an example of her (thus the re-filing of complaint).ok, got it now.

Here's a message for everyone: Don't steal other people's stuff. And if you happen to still steal, don't then try to distribute illegal copies of it. Treat others as you'd wish to be treated, then you won't end up in court with huge legal bills.

As a person that has had personal property stolen, and a business owner who has had intellectual and company owned property stolen; I have always felt that the only reimbursement required to me would be the value, or cost of replacing, the stolen item. In terms of intellectual property (yay for multi-year patent infringement lawsuits), the reimbursed monies should be either a) what I was unable to obtain based on lost business, or b) what the other party made with my I.P. - whichever is more.

In this case, the riaa should only be allowed to recoup their losses from the infringement. Market value of song x number of songs + number of people she allowed to obtain the song (however many downloaded it from her). At that point the record label has recouped their cost and it should be left to the court to decide applicable fines, reprecussions from the illegal action.

Your welcome to your opinion, but the court's opinion was that the losses were higher than you apparantly believe. Furthermore, civil law allows for punitive considerations.

Originally posted by benjwah:Also, you can't argue that the RIAA haven't brought a knife to a fistfight here. I'd argue that this is on par with jaywalking as far as crimes against society go.

My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately, it looks like they are trying to make an example out of someone and Jamie's on the radar. Even if she can't afford it, just having the precedent of her being guilty will help the RIAA.

You and several others in this thread are assuming a lot. Is "making available" illegal? It's a fuzzy enough point that the judge has declared himself as possibly mistaken in his previous viewpoint. That alone should be enough to raise eyebrows as it's been enough for a retrial.

Besides, there was never any evidence that she was even "making available" other than what was included in the original suit. No files/programs were shown on her PC.

1) It has not been fuzzy in multiple court cases. I highly doubt that it will be decided ultimatly that it is not a consideration here.

2) I may be incorrect here, but I seem to remember that this is the person who tampered with evidence and formatted the HDD once caught. Given that, hasn't she already tossed away the best defense she had, ie: a record of how seldom the music in question was downloaded? My guess is that it wasn't downloaded seldomly at all, given that she went through the trouble to erase evidence.

3) Lets dispense with any notion that Jammie Thomas was just a minor infringer with only a few songs available. In fact, she had 1,702 tracks available on Kazaa, which is about 700 more than my *entire* digital music collection. And I worked as a DJ. Yes I know some audiophiles and completists have more, but in general I think she was sharing more than your average person owns by a long shot. They chose to only try her over 24 specific tracks, but thats NOT all they caught her sharing.

I don't understand the sympathy here. If anything, she is getting off easy. Even if they charged her considerably less per track, they could just charge her with far more counts of infringement given the huge number she was actually sharing.